In times of increasing public resistance against their agenda, the LGBT lobby increasingly relies on the judicial activism of like-minded judges to impose what they cannot obtain through democratic means.
While the “strategic litigation” of the lobby so far has focused on the European Court of Human Rights (which, thanks to its relentless support for radical agendas on abortion and sodomy has by now depleted its once considerable prestige), it is now trying to involve the Court of Justice of the EU in its attempts to overturn the moral order. This is done through a legal action (Case C – 673/16 Coman and others) in which, following a request from the Romanian Constitutional Court, the CJEU is being asked to interpret the word “spouse” in the context of EU law on freedom of movement. Continue reading “CJEU holds hearing on “free movement rights” for sodomite couples”
If there is something that clearly can be deduced from last month’s national elections in Austria, it is that the electorate didn’t consider the introduction of sodo-“marriage” a great priority. The parties with the greatest increase in votes were those who clearly stated that marriage is – and should remain – a union between one man and one woman: the conservative “Austrian People’s Party (ÖVP) and the national conservative “Freedomite Party” (FPÖ). Having increased their share of votes by aggregated 13%, these two groups now dispose of a solid majority in the National Assembly and look set to form the next government. By stark contrast, the group that – already by picking lesbian activist Ulrike Lunacek as their lead candidate – most aggressively turned sodo-“marriage” into a core part of their electoral program lost more than two thirds of its votes and all of the parliamentary seats it had previously held.
As a result, a parliamentary majority for introducing sodo-“marriage” seems completely out of reach within the next five years. But despite this, it could nevertheless become a reality within the next few weeks.
The reason is that the Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof) has, in a surprising about-face, announced that it has doubts regarding the constitutionality of the legal definition of marriage set out in Article 44 of the Civil Code, and intends to subject that definition to an examination ex officio, with the likely outcome that the part of it stating that the two spouses must be “of different sex” will be removed. Continue reading “Austrians don’t want sodo-“marriage”. But their Constitutional Court does.”
The ECtHR has today delivered its decision in the case of Ratzenböck and Seydl v. Austria, concerning a man-woman couple who wanted to conclude a “registered partnership”, because it considered the less committing terms of such a partnership more appealing than those of a normal marriage. The Court decided that the non-availability of such a “registered partnership” for different-sex couples does not constitute discrimination on the grounds of “sexual orientation”. Continue reading “ECtHR: heterosexual couple not allowed to contract sodo-“marriage””
by Ross Douthat, New York Times
In the Catholic Church of Pope Francis, it is dangerous to be too conservative. Professor Josef Seifert, a distinguished Catholic philosopher from Austria, discovered this recently, when he was dismissed from his position at the University of Granada in Spain by the local archbishop.
Seifert’s sin was to have raised questions about “Amoris Laetitia,” the controversial papal exhortation on marriage, whose ambiguous statements on divorce and remarriage the philosopher described as a potential “theological atom bomb” for Catholic moral teaching. Such stark criticism of a sitting pope “damages the communion of the church,” Granada’s archbishop wrote, while retiring the professor from his academic post.
A “Bus for the Freedom of Speech” has toured Germany and collected 220.000 signatures against the arbitrary re-definition of marriage, which by nature can only be concluded between a man and a woman.
Northern Ireland’s prohibition of gay “marriage” does not violate same-sex couples’ rights, Belfast’s high court ruled Thursday.
The court dismissed two cases challenging the ban, delivering a setback to gay “marriage” advocates in the only part of the United Kingdom still upholding a ban.
Barring same-sex “marriage” in Northern Ireland does not contravene human rights, the judge ruled, “because that right does not exist.”
More on LifeSiteNews, here.